Macular hole Delphi consensus statement (MHOST).
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Confalonieri Filippo, Haave Hanna, Binder Susanne, Bober Agnieszka Monika, Bragadottir Ragnheidur, Baerland Thomas, Faber Rowan, Forsaa Vegard, Gonzalez-Lopez Julio J, Govetto Andrea, Haugstad Marta, Ivastinovic Domagoj, Jenko Neža Čokl, Nicoară Simona Delia, Kaljurand Kuldar, Kozak Igor, Kvanta Anders, Lytvynchuk Lyubomyr, Nawrocka Zofia Anna, Pajic Sanja Petrovic, Petrovič Mojca Globočnik, Radecka Liga, Rehak Matus, Romano Mario R, Ruban Andrii, Speckauskas Martynas, Stene-Johansen Ingar, Stranak Zbynek, Thaler Angela, Thein Anna Sophie Aagaard, Theocharis Ioannis, Tomic Zoran, Yan Xiaohe, Zekolli Muhamet, Zhuri Burim, Znaor Ljubo, Petrovski Beata Eva, Kolko Miriam, Lumi Xhevat, Petrovski Goran
Аннотация
METHODS: 37 expert VR surgeons from 21 mainly European countries participated in Delphi method-based questionnaire for diagnosis and treatment of FTMHs and LMHs.
RESULTS: A total of 36 items were rated in round 1 by 37 participants, of which 10 items achieved consensus: intraoperative verification of PVD; clinical superiority of OCT-based FTMH classification; practical ineffectiveness of ocriplasmin; circular 360° ILM peeling for small macular holes; use of regular surgical technique for the size of the hole in concomitant retinal detachment; performing complete vitrectomy; SF6 gas as preferred tamponade; cataract surgery if crystalline lens is mildly/moderately opaque; removal of both ILM and LHEP in LMH surgery. In round 2, 18 items with moderate consensus (45-70% agreement) in round 1 were rated by 35 participants. Final consensus was reached in 35% of questions related to both diagnosis and surgical procedures.
CONCLUSIONS: This Delphi study provides valuable information about the consensus/disagreement on different scenarios encountered during FTMH and LMH management as a guide tosurgical decision-making. High rate of disagreement and/or variable approaches still exist for treating such relatively common conditions.